|
View Poll Results: Does he | |||
Yes | 27 | 28.13% | |
No | 14 | 14.58% | |
George Bush coughed on the towers | 55 | 57.29% | |
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1011
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have said: 1. if you are anti abortion and anti mask you are just as dumb as me for being anti shutting down the economy during every flu season. 2. if you think that the democrats use the scotus to legislate but you want to elect a scotus to repeal every amendment after the 10th(idk where you stand but it sounds like that's your position?) you are 100% using the scotus to legislate. | |||
Last edited by Jibartik; 10-13-2020 at 05:47 PM..
|
|
#1012
|
|||
|
Imagine caring about the opinion of people who lived 300 years ago to make decisions about today's society.
| ||
|
#1014
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||
|
#1015
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||
|
#1016
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Court stacking is where you appoint judges that favor your ideology and/or party affiliation. So your claim is that the Republicans are trying to stack the courts. The point about Democrats trying to pack the courts refers to their declared gambit of expanding the court size and then stacking it. Packing is much worse than just stacking. If you stack you're still playing by the rules both sides established. Like everyone agrees on nine and then tries to appoint their judges when they can. But if you pack it's like you're saying when it's my turn, I'm going to expand the court size and then stack it with my judges so you won't have a chance in hell of getting any decisions your way. Like instead of waiting for a justice to die, you just appoint more because you can. Both parties stack the courts when they can. It's the privilege of power to appoint judges and for a long time it's been understood that's what you do when you can. By throwing the whole court-packing hissy fit, the Democrats painted themselves as destructive children kicking the game table over. Embarrassed they are now using the word "packing" to mean something else so they can accuse Republicans of doing something the Democrats do under another name. Propaganda examples: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wow language can sure be dynamic in a hurry! So to recap: Republicans and Democracts = court stacking = eh. Democrats = court packing = super bad! Now that we established that the prime mouthpieces of the Democrat party are conniving and inveterate liars, let's move on to abortion. Or specifically legislating from the bench. What Republicans object to is exactly that. The judges we want are originalists. This means that the judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the intent of the original writers of the law and if they have to go that far back, what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. We don't want textualists, who interpret the law as if written contemporaneously, according to what the words mean now. Democrats like those because Democrats are cowardly and lazy. Allow me to explain: If you have a originalist judicial system, that forces the lawmakers to be on the ball. They have to carefully consider their legislation and they have to update it. Very importantly they have to debate it and take a public stance. That's because the Supreme Court isn't going to go hmmm well they could have meant this or that and then jump through some hoops to keep the law valid. They're going to say your law is defective and now rewrite it or it doesn't apply. Let me give you an example; just this year the idiot Gorsuch joined the majority in writing this garbage: Quote:
In the Republican-favored originalist scenario, the Court would have rejected Gorsuch's stance and rejected Title VII protection for gays and transgenders and that would have been the case until Congress decided to specifically change the language of the law. Because we oppose legislating from the bench we are portrayed as hating on the gays or whoever the courts are trying to 'help-out'. But we love the gays! We just want Congress to write the laws and write them clearly and often. We want the Courts to limit themselves to good dog/bad dog criticisms, we don't need them to teach us new tricks. Oh abortion, right! So yeah same thing. I mean I am glad that my personal view on abortion aligns with my principled stand against judicial activism, meaning fighting against the latter will make the former much harder to obtain. Don't think that I would stop fighting against textualism or juridical legislation even if it meant advancing abortion's cause, as distasteful as that might be as long as the Constitution was upheld and the framework under which this nation has been working under is honored. | ||||||||
|
#1017
|
|||
|
Stacking and Packing is the only thing that will save this country from a generation of regression. Hope that helps.
| ||
|
#1018
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Fact: Court packing in this context, and the reason it was brought up, why it was asked during the debates, and everything releated to the phrase in conversation = increasing the scotus to 11 judges. | ||||
Last edited by Jibartik; 10-13-2020 at 07:03 PM..
|
|
#1019
|
|||
|
I'm skimming your post BB because its very long!
One thing you claim is that court packing is bad and we all agree on 9 judges? Whos we? Nobody has agree'd to that. Weve changed the number from 5 to 10 many times. John Addams Didn't agree. TD Roosevelt didn't agree. The constitution doesn't say either. And and it's been as low as 5. They passed an act to lower it to 7 but never did and then just bumped it up to 9. You say stacking is less bad than packing, but you're going to have to explain that, because you dont. If you ask 9 republicans if we should enforce prayer at school theyre going to enforce prayer at school. If it was all democrats in there yall would be at re-neducation right now. So why would you think a court stacked by evangelicals is a good idea too? The power becomes imbalanced and one political ideology is able to take control of the country, to the dismay of half the country. It's not right, its far worse than "packing" even they way you define it. You need to defend the claim that packing = worse than stacking, because Im calling you out, it's not true. | ||
Last edited by Jibartik; 10-13-2020 at 07:19 PM..
|
|
#1020
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Although I find any of these arguments to be dubious because just a few pages ago you said the opposite of ALL of this, and said that you wanted the republicans to appoint judges because they are the ones that protect the sanctity of life. This stands in stark contrast to everything you wrote in your recent post : Quote:
| ||||
Last edited by Jibartik; 10-13-2020 at 07:43 PM..
|
|
|
|